firmly assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think and do hereby recognize acknowledge and declare That King James the Second having abdicated the Government and Their Majesties having accepted the Crown and Royal Dignity Their said Majesties did become were and are and of right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm our Sovereign Liege Lord and Lady King and Queen of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging in and to whose Princely Persons the Royal State Crown and Dignity of the said Realms with all Honours Titles c. to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully rightfully and intirely invested and incorporated united and annexed And when that Parliament was dissolved and a new one summoned to meet at Westminster there was a new Recognition of Their Title in these words We Your Majesties most Humble and Loyal Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled do beseech Your Most Excellent Majesties that it may be publish'd and declar'd in this High Court of Parliament and Enacted by Authority of the same That we do recognize and acknowledg Your Majesties were are and of Right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm our Sovereign Liege Lord and Lady King and Queen of England France and Ireland c. And if this be not a Legal Title I know not what a Legal Title means It is as good a Title as Edward the Confessor had as good a one as W. 1. W. 2. Hen 1. K. Stephen Hen. 2. K. John Hen. 3. Edw. 3. Hen. 4 5 6 7. Q. Mary or Q. Elizabeth one or other of those two Queens either had or could pretend to and these whom I have mentioned had as truly a Legal Right to the Crown as any of the rest whom I make no mention of And the true Reason why I instance in these is this Because it is certain that none of these were Kings by any Divine Right of Succession If Proximity of Blood be absolutely necessary to a Legal Title then Edw. the Confessor had none for when he ascended the Throne Edgar Atheling his Elder Brother's Son was alive Then W. 1. had none both because he was illegitimate and also because Edgar Atheling was still living Then W. 2. and Hen. 1. could have none while their Elder Brother Robert was living Then K. Stephen could have none for the Right of Blood was in Maud the Empress Hen. the first 's Daughter Then Hen. 2. could have none so long as his Mother Maud was alive Then K. John could have none for Arthur his Elder Brother's Son had all the Right that Proximity of Blood could give Then Hen. 3. could have none at least not before the 24th year of his Reign or thereabouts at what time Eleanor Sister to Prince Arthur died Then Edw. 3. could have none during the Life of his unfortunate Father Edw. 2. who was Depos'd Then Hen. 4 5 6 7. could have none there being another Family which had the proximity of Blood on their side Then Q. Mary or Q. Elizabeth one or other of them could have none for it is certain that one of the two must be illegitimate because Katherine Q. Mary's Mother was living at the time when Q. Elizabeth was born And yet we do not find that any Learned and Pious Bishops or any other dignified Clergy-men ever refused to accept of Ecclesiastical Preferments from any of the forementioned Princes and to swear Allegiance to them Nor can it be said that they swore Allegiance to them as to Kings de facto but not de jure at least wise this cannot be affirmed of those who lived before the Reign of Edw. 4. for then arose this distinction and not before The Scotch Parliament calls this a Villanous distinction I think I may say it is a distinction that is not well grounded for it seems to me to be founded on a false Principle That Proximity of Blood gives such an indefeasible Right or Title to the Crown that he who is next on the Royal Line whatever his natural or moral incapacities are cannot be barr'd from succeding to the Throne Which is directly contrary to a Statute made in the 13th of Q. Eliz. ch 1. wherein it is affirmed That the King Lords and Commons have right to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the Descent Inheritance and Government thereof And 't was by the said Statute made Treason during the Life of that Queen to hold affirm or maintain the contrary and after her decease forfeiture of Goods and Chattels and I know not of any Law of God that the Queen and Parliament broke when they made that Statute A King de facto is not as the Doctor imagines an Usurper but he is a Lawful King He is one to whom our Allegiance is due as appears from a Statute made in the 11th of Hen. 7. ch 1. and Allegiance is due to none but him who has a Legal Right for Allegiance is Obedience according to Law and consequently must be paid to him to whom the Law directs us to pay it and to say that the Law directs us to pay our Obedience to one who has no Legal Right to it does not sound well 4. It follows from hence that our Allegiance is due to K. VVilliam and Q. Mary for it is due to a Lawful King and it has been shew'd That Their Majesties are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen And this is the foundation of my Allegiance II. I must now examin Dr. Sherlook's Opinion concerning this matter His notion is this Page 10. That all Sovereign Princes who are settled in their Thrones are plac'd there by God and invested with his Authority and therefore must be obeyed by all Subjects as the Ministers of God without enquiring into their Legal Right and Title to the Throne And he tells us That the Convocation has determin'd two great points whereon this whole Controversy turns 1. That those Princes who have no Legal Right to their Thrones may yet have God's Authority 2. That when they are throughly settled in their Thrones they are invested with God's Authority and must be reverenc'd and obeyed by all who live within their Territories and Dominions as well Priests as People This is his Doctrine And this says he I will endeavour to prove from the Authority of Scripture and Reason Scripture and Reason I am always ready to hear he that brings me a plain Scripture proof commands my assent and he that gives me a good Reason will easily persuade me And therefore though the Venerable Authority of a Convocation stands in the front of his Book yet I intend it shall Lackey after his Reasons and his Scripture Proofs SECT I. Dr. Sherlock's Proofs from Scripture and Reason Examined HIS Proofs from Reason and Scripture must he says necessarily be intermixt and interwoven with each other and to set the matter in as clear a light as he can he reduceth the whole
not give some Authority and yet we find that he in the course of his Providence does intrust less than Sovereign Power in the hands of those to whom he gives no Authority As the Power that every Oppressor has is from God but God surely gives him no Authority to oppress IV. But let us suppose now that whoever has Sovereign Power has also Sovereign Authority and must not be resisted and then I will prove that the Sovereign Authority is always in the People for bare Sovereign Power is only Sovereign Force and Sovereign Force is the greatest natural Strength and surely the greatest strength is in the People if the Doctor will allow me that five or six Millions of Men have more strength than one single Man who is seated on the Throne Nay according to this Principle Sovereign Authority can never be any where else but in the People because the People cannot part with their strength nor confer it on the Supream Magistrate it is so their own that they cannot give it away But you 'l say they may promise that they will not use their natural strength otherwise than the Supream Magistrate or than the Law shall direct True but though they promise that they will not use their natural strength otherwise than the Law directs yet still they retain it nor are they upon their making of such a Promise weaker than they were before there being not the least abatement of their natural strength So that if they had Sovereign Power before they made such a Promise it follows that they have it still And therefore if as he says Power be a certain sign to us that where God has plac'd the Power he has given the Authority It is infallibly true that the Authority is in the People and can be no where else because there God has plac'd the Power Hence I observe 1. That the Doctor is really no Friend to crowned Heads for he has unking'd them all he has taken away from them their Sovereign Authority and given it to the People Now suppose that an oppressed People should be sensible that they have the superior Strength and should be so cunning as from thence to conclude with the Doctor that they have God's Authority to deliver themselves from the Yoke of the Oppressor I think according to his Principles he ought to allow they have Authority to free themselves from Oppression because they have Power Supream Power or strength lodg'd in them and God never intrusts Sovereign Power in any Man's or Mens hands to whom he does not give Sovereign Authority Besides it may be consider'd that though when they see an Usurper on the Throne they should with the Doctor conclude it to be God's Will that he should reign for some time longer or shorter as God pleases Yet they are taught by the Doctor That this does not prove it to be God's Will it should be always so And therefore when they find they have strength to resist the Tyrant and can agree together to make use of it they will presently conclude that it is not God's Will that they should be Slaves one Week or Day longer And thus the Doctor 's Tyrant is on a sudden tumbled down from his Royal Throne by that very Argument that he made use of to set him up 2. That the Doctor is fallen out with the University of Oxford who condemn'd this Principle That all Civil Authority is deriv'd originally from the People and if the Fires be still continued there his Book will be in some danger Nay he is all on a sudden fallen out with himself and from being a mighty Assertor of the Prerogatives and Rights of Kings is become a Republican And who can doubt but for the future Lex Rex Vindiciae contra Tyrannos Milton's Defensio populi Anglicani and such-like Books will be in great esteem with him But this is only a slip of the Doctor he still means well to Kings especially if they be such as he sets up Now England behold the King that Doctor Sherlock gives thee he is an absolute Lord and some will call him Tyrant For V. He that is a Sovereign Prince and has God's Authority but no Legal Right is an absolute and unlimited Monarch and consequently such a King as England never yet own'd for it is Law that sets bounds to Regal Power and therefore he that is our King but not by Law is an absolute and unlimited Monarch And I am sure whatever Notions some Men who understand little of our Laws have concerning the boundless Power and uncontroulable Authority of Kings yet the Laws do really bound the Regal Power this the Lawyers teach us This is the Doctrine of Westminster-Hall And I think in a matter of this nature it is more reasonable to take the Judgment of Lawyers than of Divines VI. He that has God's Authority without any Legal Right cannot be limited by Laws For God's Authority cannot be limited by Men and therefore if it be true that he who has no legal Right to govern has God's Authority when he is settled in the Throne then it follows that he has an Authority that cannot be bounded by humane Laws For a Power that God gives none can set bounds to besides God and if he has made no limitations of the Regal Power as 't is plain he has not just as plain as it is that he has said nothing about it then no limitations can be made such a King cannot yield that any limits should be set to God's Authority which he is invested with unless he should have a new Authority from Heaven impowring him to do so And the People cannot set bounds to it neither with nor without his Consent not without the King's Consent for that would be rebelling against God's Vicegerent and trampling on Divine Authority that would be no less than a robbing of God a stealing of God's Authority and the worst of Sacriledges nor can they set bounds to his Power with his Consent for if he cannot part with any of his Power they cannot take it for that would be like receiving of stollen Goods Besides it may be considered that surely God gives a Prince no more of his Authority than is fit and necessary to serve the Ends of Government and therefore he cannot part with any of it or if he should he would not have enough left him to serve the Ends of Government at least he could not be sure that he should have enough unless he were also sure of this that God at first gave him more than enough which he cannot be certain of He may indeed know that he has more than he needs for his present Occasions but he does not know how soon the Scene of Affairs may change and then all God's Authority even the whole Imperial Law may be little enough for him I have as much Zeal and dutiful Affection for their Sacred Majesties King William and Queen Mary as any of my fellow-Subjects and as I
Law He blames those that have not taken the Oaths Page 2. because they go wholly upon this Principle That Allegiance is due only to Legal Right and take away says he that and you remove all the difficulties they labour under and I suppose it is for their sakes that he has as far as in him lay taken away the Legal Right from their Majesties that so he might remove all the difficulties which the Non-swearers labour under But he seems not to care what becomes of their Majesties nor what difficulties he throws them into And he blames likewise many of those that have writ in defence of the new Oaths because they suppose that a Legal Right is necessary to make Allegiance due Page 1. and have therefore endeavoured to justify the Legal Right of their present Majesties This it seems is become a Crime to justify the Legal Right of Their present Majesties which yet if we do not justify we condemn our selves But why should we not justify the Legal Right of Their present Majesties Why should we for the sake of a few Non-swearees betray our Cause and tacitly own that we believe King William and Queen Mary to be Usurpers He gives two reasons for this and I think he is a very bold Man that will venture to give reasons for so unreasonable a thing Now his Reasons are 1st Because it is unfit to dispute the Rights of Princes 2d Because it is unnecessary 1. Because 't is unfit to dispute the Rights of Princes But though it may not be fit to dispute the Right of a Prince Page 1. when settled on the Throne yet it might have been fit to assert it though no Government can permit it to be a Question yet it might have been his declared Opinion one would think that he out of gratitude to his Royal Patron should have own'd him to be Rightful King nay methinks his interest should have prompted him to it For I must tell him there is this in the case which he little thought of That if K. William have not a legal Right to the Crown Dr. W. Sherlock can have no legal Right to the Mastership of the Temple For 't is the Law alone that invests King William with a Power to bestow these Preferments and therefore if the King be only King de facto that is in his sense an Usurper I know not how the Doctor will be able to make out that he is any more than de facto Master of the Temple without a Legal Right to his Place A froward Prince would hardly bear such ill treatment as this I 'm sure his Legal King would not and a mild King does not deserve it from him I doubt not but he has done a great deal of mischief though I do not say he design'd it by refusing to take the Oaths And did it become him to publish such a Book to the World and by implication declare to all his fellow Subjects That he for his part does not look upon King William and Queen Mary to whom he has sworn Allegiance to be any more than a King and Queen de facto that is according to him Usurpers 2. He says 'T is unnecessary to defend the Legal Right of King William and Queen Mary For whom is it unnecessary For him it may be because he does not believe it but 't is not unnecessary for those that own their Legal Right Nay there is nothing more necessary than this and therefore two Parliaments this and the last have recogniz'd their Title But it seems those Parliaments did a very needless thing and wanted this Doctor to give them better Advice for he that can sit in his Study and there make and unmake Kings at his pleasure may surely be fit to give Counsel to Parliaments The Doctor and I are in one thing agreed That Allegiance is due to King William and Queen Mary but we differ about the foundation and reason of our Allegiance He thinks that we ought not to take the consideration of Right into the Settlement of Government Page 18. for he says A Prince may be settled in his Throne without Legal Right and when he is so God has made him our King and requires our Obedience and I cannot be of his Opinion He says That his Allegiance may be due to one who has no Legal Right to Govern him I say that I owe Allegiance to none but him who has the Legal Right I shall therefore do these two things 1. I shall give my own Opinion with the Grounds and Reasons of it 2. I shall examine his I. I shall give my Opinion with the Grounds and Reasons of it which I shall do in these following Propositions 1. Allegiance is Obedience according to Law 2. No Man can have any Right to my Allegiance who is not my Lawful King These Propositions are I think in themselves evident and need no proof And therefore 3. King William and Queen Mary are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of England and the Dominions thereunto belonging This appears plainly from that Declaration which the Lords and Commons Assembled at Westminster presented to their Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Orange Feb. 13. 1688. wherein they set forth Declaration of Lords and Commons presented to the Prince and Princess of Orange That King James by the assistance of divers evil Counsellors Judges and Ministers employ'd by him had endeavoured to extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom and many instances they give of his misgovernment and that he had Abdicated the Government and the Throne was become Vacant And then they assert the several Rights of the Subject which the late King had notoriously violated and last of all Having an entire confidence that his Highness the Prince of Orange would preserve them from the violation of their Rights and from all attempts upon their Religion Laws and Liberties they resolve That William and Mary Prince and Princess of Orange be and be declared King and Queen of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging And the Prince and Princess of Orange at the Request and by the Advice of the Lords and Commons 1o. Willielam Mariae c. 1. did accept the Crown and Royal Dignity of King and Queen of England France and Ireland and the Dominions and Territories thereto belonging They did accept the Crown they did not snatch it by force and violence They were no Conquerors no Usurpers And afterwards in an Act past December 16. 1689. the same Parliament recogniz'd their Title in these words The Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons seriously considering how it hath pleas'd Almighty God in his marvellous Providence and merciful Goodness to this Nation to provide and preserve Their said Majesties Royal Persons most happily to reign over us upon the Throne of Their Ancestors for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises do truly
the Settlement not of a King but of a powerful Usurper 't is just such a Settlement as a Thief may have for a time who breaks open another Man's House and turns him out and takes possession of it Prop. 8. Allegiance is due only to the King This I freely give him And from hence he concludes That we must pay our Allegiance to him who is our King though without a Legal Right His Supposition is false for he supposes that one may be his King without a Legal Right which I deny He may be and is an Usurper who has no Legal Right but he is not our King he is a private Man intruding himself into a publick Office which he is not call'd to and no Allegiance is due to him But says he our Allegiance is due to him who is our King though without a Legal Right because Allegiance is due only to God's Authority not to a bare Legal Title without God's Authority Here he separates two things which do always go together a Legal Right and God's Authority for God does not give Authority to any but those who have a Legal Right I grant that God may nominate Kings if he pleases and then doubtless they would have his Authority without a Legal Right nor would they need any Legal Right since they would have a Divine Right which would be better But since he does not nominate any Kings as he formerly did in Jewry we have no way to know who has God's Authority but by knowing who has the Legal Right SECT II. An Examination of some other Reasons and Arguments urg'd by Dr. Sherlock for the further Confirmation of his Doctrine contain'd in his 4th Section 1. HE observes That the Scripture has given us no Directions in this Case but to submit and pay all the Allegiance of Subjects to the present Powers Nor was it necessary that the Scripture should give us any other directions in this case for why may not Reason without Scripture direct us in this case as it did direct Men before the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans was written But Scripture he says makes no distinction that ever he could find between rightful Kings and Vsurpers And what then Scripture makes no distinction that I can find between my right Hand and my Left but a little Sense and Reason will teach me to distinguish Was it necessary for the Apostle when he taught Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers to have added if they be truly the higher Powers but if they be not the higher Powers you need not be subject to them Was it needful when he said Servants obey your Masters to have immediately subjoin'd this if they be really your Masters but if they be not your Masters you need not obey them Was it necessary when he gave this general Command Wives submit your selves to your own Husbands to have immediately added if they be indeed your own Husbands but if they be not your Husbands you need not submit your selves to them No more was it necessary for the Apostle to distinguish between a rightful King and an Usurper because every one that has but common Sense and Reason can do this with ease without Apostolical help An Usurper of Royal Power is not to be reckon'd amongst St. Paul's higher Powers nor is he any more my King as being not called to that Office than he can be called my Master with whom I have made no Contract And therefore to say the Apostle here speaks only of lawful Powers is not as he says gratis dictum it being the only reasonable interpretation that the words can bear Had there says he been any such Rule before given to submit to lawful Powers but not to submit to Vsurpers there had been some pretence for understanding St. Paul 's all Power of all legal Power but there being nothing like this any where in Scripture if he had intended any such distinction he ought to have said it in express words or else no Body could reasonably have understood him to intend this Precept of Subjection to the higher Powers only of Powers that had a legal Right Nay on the contrary say I if St. Paul had not intended any such distinction he should in express words have forbidden such a distinction he should have told us that we ought not to distinguish between rightful Kings and Usurpers for that we should thus distinguish Reason will teach us but that we should not distinguish can be only Matter of Faith I would think my Obedience due to an Usurper if I had plain Scripture for it but Reason I am sure does not teach it The Doctor himself formerly taught that when St. Paul says All Power is of God he means only legal Power and that I believe was a true Exposition of the Text But it seems he has now renounced it as he tells us in his Preface to the Case of Allegiance c. and I know no other reason he has for so doing but only this because it cannot stand with his new Doctrine The Criticism he says between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not do No matter for that I lay no weight upon it and yet by the by I must tell him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do differ in proper speaking for the former is Power whether legal or no the latter is only legal Power or Authority What he says That if St. Paul had meant only legal Powers then in order to the fulfilling of this Precept it would be necessary for Subjects to examine the Titles of Princes and to that end to be well skill'd in the History and Laws of a Nation c. is so weak an Objection that it neither needs nor deserves an Answer For though he will not take the Judgment of two Parliaments that have declared King William and Queen Mary to be lawful King and Queen of England yet others think it reasonable to rest satisfied with their Declaration What he adds concerning the Titles of the Roman Emperors in St. Paul's Time Enquiry into the Measures of Obedience That they were either stark naught or doubtful I cannot allow for since both the People and Senate had acknowledged the Power that Augustus had indeed violently usurped it became Legal when it was thus submitted to and confirmed both by Senate and People and it was established in his Family by a long Prescription when this Epistle was written But he goes on and tells us That the Reason the Apostle gives for submission to higher Powers is not a legal Right but the Authority of God To which I answer That the Authority of God does suppose a legal Right God giving no Authority to any one to rule over others who are not legally deputed to the Office God's Authority is I conceive a Divine Right Now we may distinguish of a Divine Right for 1. A Prince may have a Divine Right to ascend the Royal
believe them to have as good a Title to the Crown of England as any of their Royal Ancestors ever had so I hope they are so firmly settled in the Throne that all the Powers on Earth will not be able to remove them But I think Dr. Sherlock does by his Principles undermine their Throne for though he invests them with God's Authority because they have the Sovereign Power are able to crush whom they please and are settled in the Throne yet he will not own them to have a legal Right to sit thereon whereas it is most certain that there is nothing can secure to a Prince his Sovereign Power but that which sets bounds to it the Law SECT IV. Wherein is shew'd how little value we ought to have for the Acts and Canons of the Convocation begun in the first Year of King James I. 1603. FOR to the Authority of the Convocation begun in the first Year of King James I I may oppose the Authority of several Convocations in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth wherein the Bishops and Clergy were of a contrary Opinion I shall instance in two only the one in the 35th and the other in the 39th Year of that Queen's Reign 1. In the 35th of Q. Elizabeth the Clergy were of Opinion that an Usurper though settled in the Throne had not God's Authority and no Allegiance was due to him as appears plainly from their granting the Queen two Subsidies of four Shillings in the Pound to assist the Dutch in shaking off their Obedience to their once Sovereign the King of Spain 35 Eliz. c. 12. The Prelates and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury have for certain Considerations lovingly and liberally given and granted to the Queen 's most excellent Majesty two Subsidies of Four Shillings in the Pound What were those Considerations Amongst others this was one The consideration of her Majesty's great Charges in the provident and needful prevention of such intended Attempts as manifestly tended to the utter overthrow of the present happy state of her Highness's Realm to the miserable ruin of divers other Princes and Countries associate and near adjoining and to the extirpation and rooting out of the sincere profession of the Gospel both here and elsewhere The Temporalities Subsidy-Act explains this to us in these Reasons for their Tax Cap. 13. Besides the great and perpetual Honour which it has pleased God to give your Majesty abroad in making You the principal Support of all just and religious Causes against Vsurpers So that this Island has in your Majesty's Days been as a Stay and Sanctuary to distressed States and Kingdoms and as a Bulwark against the Tyranny of mighty and usurping Potentates Besides the great Succours in France and Flanders which we do conceive to be most Honourable in regard of the Ancient Leagues the Justice and Equity of their Causes c. These were the chief Reasons that moved the Clergy to give four Shillings in the Pound to the Queen This was read a third time Mar. 30.1593 in the Lords House these following Bishops being present and no Dissentientes among them as appears from the Journals of the Lords House Cantuariensis Londinensis Godwin de Praesulibus Asaphensis Roffensis Exoniensis Cicestrensis Licolniensis Petroburgensis Herefordensis Bangorensis Wigorniensis Landavensis Sarisburiensis Bathonens Wellensis Johames Whitgift Johan Elmer Gulielmus Hughes Johannes Young Johannes Woolton Thomas Bickley Gulielmus Wickham Richardus Howland Herbert Westfaling Hugo Bellott Richardus Fletcher Gervasius Babington Richardus Coldwell Johannes Still Now I think it is plain from hence that the Bishops and Clergy in the 35th of Queen Elizabeth did believe that an Usurper though he be settled in the Throne has not God's Authority and that those who are oppress'd by him may lawfully resist him and free themselves from his Yoke for had they been of Opinion that it was a Sin in the Dutch to resist Philip the 2d King of Spain as having God's Authority would they not have directed her Majesty's Conscience better in this Matter would they not have humbly represented to her Highness that though Philip the 2d was an Usurper yet he had God's Authority and therefore neither ought his Subjects to resist him nor she to assist them in making resistance Would they not have given her Sacred Majesty good Advice rather than Mony Would they not have admonished the Dutch to lay down their Arms and fly to their Prayers and Tears Who can think they would have been so uncharitable to their Protestant Neighbours as to set forward their Damnation or so foolish as to buy their own at the rate of Four Shillings in the Pound Such Actions as these do plainly shew what Opinion Arch-Bishop Whitgift Bishop Elmer and the rest of Queen Elizabeth's Bishops and Clergy had concerning this Matter and that as plainly as the Acts and Canons of a Convocation It may here be very proper to consider that the King of Spain had once a Legal Right to govern the Dutch who were his Subjects and ow'd him Allegiance but the Prelats and Clergy of the Church of England did verily believe he had forfeited and lost it by usurping upon them for it seems they were of Opinion that a Prince might usurp upon his Subjects as well as Subjects upon their Prince and this I believe was our Case King James the 2d having been that to us which Philip the 2d was to the Dutch That which I gather from hence is this That Queen Elizabeth's Bishops either did not think that an Usurper was invested with God's Authority or if they did they believed it lawful in some Cases to resist a Prince though invested with God's Authority Now let Dr. Sherlock chuse which of the two he will grant me for I think it cannot be avoided but one of the two must be allow'd 2. In the 39th of Elizabeth Chap. 26. The Clergy think themselves bound c to offer unto her Highness as a Testimony and Token of their good Wills and dutiful Affections some such Aid and Contribution towards the supportation of her Majesties Charges as they are perswaded the greatness of the same most justly may require And the Temporalities Subsidy-Act 39 Eliz. c. 27. has these words This Land is become since your Majesti's happy Days both a Port and a Haven of Refuge for distressed States and Kingdoms and a Rock and Bulwark of Opposition against the Tyrannies and ambitious Attempts of mighty and usurping Potentates This pass'd the House of Lords Dec. 19. 1596 fourteen Bishops being present and agreeing to it one of which was Arch-Bishop Whitgift c. The conclusion from hence is easy that in the 39th of Queen Elizabeth's reign the Prelates and Clergy own'd not this Doctrine that Vsurpers when settled in the Throne are invested with God's Authority and must be obey'd by all those who live within their Territories and Dominions as well Priests as People Besides it ought to be consider'd that the
Acts and Canons of this Convocation wherein Dr. Overall was Prolocutor were never ratified in Parliament But you will say They however give us the Judgment of the then Church of England To this I answer 1. That here is Church against Church and Convocation against Convocation nay two Convocations and I might have said four in Queen Elizabeth's Reign against one in the Reign of her immediate Successor K. James Now methinks the Authority of two or more Convocations in Queen Elizabeth's Reign should outweigh the Authority of one single Convocation in the reign of King James unless it can be made out that the Church grows wiser and better every Age and every Year than other which I make some doubt of 2. That in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the Head of the Church agreed with the Members for both the Queen and her Convocations were of Opinion that 't was lawful for the Hollanders to shake off their Obedience to their once Sovereign King Philip but in the following reign of King James the Head of the Church and the Members differ'd about this Point and the King was on the Hollander's side as appears from a Letter which that King wrote to Dr. Abbot Part of which I have thought fit to transcribe Good Dr. Abbot I Cannot abstain to give you my Judgment of your Proceedings in your Convocation New Obs Vol. 3. Numb 22. as you call it You know all of you as I think that my Reason of calling you together was to give your Judgments how far a Christian and a Protestant King may concur to assist his Neighbours to shake off their Obedience to their once Sovereign upon the Account of Oppression Tyranny or what else you like to name it In the late Queen 's time this Kingdom was very free in assisting the Hollanders both with Arms and Advice And none of your Coat ever told me that any scrupled about it in her Reign Upon my coming to England you may know that it came from some of your selves to raise Scruples about this Matter Yet I never took any notice of these Scruples till the Affairs of Spain and Holland forc'd me to it All my Neighbours call on me to concur in the Treaty between Holland and Spain and the Honour of the Nation will not suffer the Hollanders to be abandoned especially after so much Money and Men spent in their Quarrel Therefore I was of the Mind to call my Clergy together to satisfy not so much me as the World about us of the Justness of my owning the Hollanders at this time This I needed not have done and you have forced me to say I wish I had not You have dipp'd too deep in what all Kings reserve among the Arcana Imperii And whatever Aversion you may profess against God's being the Author of Sin you have stumbled upon the Threshold of that Opinion in saying upon the Matter that even Tyranny is God's Authority and should be reverenc'd as such If the King of Spain should return to claim his old Pontifical Right to my Kingdom you leave me to seek for others to fight for it For you tell us upon the Matter beforehand his Authority is God's Authority if he prevail Mr. Doctor I have no time to express my Mind farther in this thorny business I shall give you my Orders about it by Mr. Solicitor and until then meddle no more in it for they are Edge-Tools or rather like that Weapon that 's said to cut with the one edge and cure with the other I commit you to God's Protection good Doctor Abbot and rest Your good Friend James R. And this I think lessens the Authority of Dr. Overall's Convocation very much that it is the Authority of a Church without a Head for it is plain that the Head of the Church is on my side And I lay some weight on this that King James who was a Sovereign Prince and as fond of Power as any other plainly told Dr. Abbot that he scrupled not about the Lawfulness of what the Hollanders did in shaking off their Obedience to their once Sovereign the King of Spain upon the account of his Oppression and Tyranny Hence we may gather that were K. James I. to judg between the late King his Grand-Son and the People of England he would surely give Judgment on the Peoples side for he cannot condemn the People of England without condemning the Dutch And his Judgment in this Case I think we ought to value more than the Opinions of an hundred Doctors that differ from him But 't is time now to draw to a conclusion The Cause I am engaged in is God's Cause and the King 's and Queen's Cause and the Peoples Cause it is God's Cause whom Dr. Sherlock seems by his Principles to make the Author of Sin for whatever aversion he may profess against God's being the Author of Sin he has stumbled upon the threshold of that Opinion in saying upon the Matter that even Tyranny is God's Authority and should be reverenc'd as such And it is the King 's and Queen's Cause whom the Doctor supposes to be Usurpers though I do not say he has call'd them so I know no necessity there was for his writing on this Argument and much less for his reasoning on the supposition of unjust Usurpations for here was no such thing as Usurpation unless to defend our Civil Rights and Liberties and Religion establish'd by Law must be call'd Usurpation and unless he will call an excellent Prince who came to deliver us from Popery and Slavery an Usurper And though it may be allowable to put the Case Preface as he says at the worst yet methinks he ought not to have left it at the worst he should not have let his Reader run away with this Opinion that King William and Queen Mary have not a Legal Title to the Crown And though he forbids his Reader to charge him with reflecting on the present Government yet there is no intelligent Reader but must take his whole Book to be a Reflection upon it and will conclude from his not declaring King William and Queen Mary to have a Legal Right to the Crown that he does not believe it For a wise Man I think would have declar'd it had he believ'd it and Dr. Sherlock never gave any just occasion to the World to mark him out for a Fool. And it is the Peoples Cause I mean it is the Cause of all those that are the King 's and Queen's Loyal Subjects for since he says That all Sovereign Princes who are settled in their Thrones are plac'd there by God and invested with his Authority and therefore must be obey'd even though they turn Usurpers and oppress their Subjects and destroy the Fundamental Constitutions of the Government it is plain that he charges all those who assisted his Highness the Prince of Orange and were the subordinate Instruments of our Deliverance with down-right Rebellion against the late King And these were the Reasons that mov'd me to engage my self in this Controversy Whether I have detected the Doctor 's Errors and defended the Truth as I ought I leave the Reader to judg God be thanked we have a Prince who wants not courage to defend his Legal Right with his Sword and I believe he will never want Writer's to justify it with their Pens and to prove that neither was he an Usurper not were they that assisted him Rebels FINIS